BuzzerBeater Forums

@Tru6Playa: I completely agree with you. I don't have the personal drive to keep reaching out when I don't get responses. Last season was pretty lackluster and it was a downer from the start for me. =( Sad, but I am human.

@clubber_lang: Size doesn't matter when you are actually playing at the position. It only matters for training speed in different skills. You can make a well rounded player, but it is impossible for a real SF to be the best choice at the U21 stage. I've conceptualized a 3-skill SF that could work situationally. Train hard in three of IS, ID, JS, and OD. This should get the skills closer to what a pure guard or bigman will have. Bill Weeks (21 yo this season) is probably the best 21 yo SF we've had in a while (he's more balanced than Goldstein, Velasco, and Smiley). It will be hard to figure out where/when to use him. I ended up getting him a dream matchup in the 20 yo vs 21 yo scrimmage. =D

Just like with club teams, the tactics you can effectively use are dictated by your personnel. You can only effectively run inside offenses. Last season, our team's skillsets dictated that we run mostly outside offenses. Our bigs could not stand toe to toe with the bigs that Chile, Turkey, Philippines, and Italy were carrying. Even against a 3-2, they would not have been very effective. 200k C's at the U21 level all look very similar and unfortunately, we did not have any last season.

Your point about communicating the impact of having a U21 level player on your team would be my main objective in the coming term. Along with doing the best with the players I have.

Finally, reaching out to all the 18 yo's gets to be pointless. These players change hands quite often and can be ignored easily. From my experience, people interested in training their shiny new draftee will ask for help. I try to contact the most promising of the batch as well. It is much more rewarding to contact 19 yo's that have received some amount of training and direct these owners in getting their player going.

@jfriske from Speeches thread
Training for winning at the U21 level does not inhibit the development of players for the NT. Our most effective guards were guys like Ritter, Ugona, Dennison and Bobby Joe Jeffrey. In terms of primaries, Anglin and Waller were superior to these guys. The season 12 guards had better handling, driving, and passing and were on par in terms of OD. This made them more versatile and the team more effective. Not to mention cost effective.

Giving a player big man two seasons of guard training to start his career is a smart idea if you want to make a NT PF. You shouldn't expect him to make the U21 team though. Very similar to your fictional draftee, I have a 6'9 MVP guy I bought last season, and he is receiving 2 seasons of guard training. I know he won't be on an U21 team, but he may end up being an asset for the NT.What benefit for me, my player, and the community would there be if my player was on the team? A bit of merch for me, maybe a pop in experience for my player, and zip for the community. The other major drawback is the type of player that can be made into a well rounded player like this are few and far between. You need at least MVP potential and they need decent starting skills. I doubt there are 10 players like this a season.

So while you have a good intent behind this, I don't see being of any help sacrificing the U21 team to serve your purpose. I'm not even sure if it's worth it to use roster spots on them. It would be more effective saving a draftee or preparing for a disastrous GS update. If you make the commitment for the long haul training, you'll be rewarded down the line.

Edit: I'm running on allergy meds and serious lack of sleep. So if I'm repeating sentences or not making any sense, sorry. =P

Last edited by Dawson at 10/6/2010 11:53:32 PM

I was not particularly pleased with Jelme's performance this past season for reasons that have already been given. However, if he is up for it, I'd like to see him get a second term. Our undefeated Season 12, while due largely to being handed an amazing squad on a silver platter, should earn him the benefit of the doubt.

More importantly, I think it's unfair to judge a U21 coach on his first term. The players being used in the first two years were well over halfway to their U21 levels before the new coach comes on board. No, a coach needs to be judged on his second term, when his influence has been able to shape his squad from the early stages.

As such, I consider Jelme's tenure incomplete, and I'd like to see what he can do for the next couple of seasons.

First off, Jelme should blame the U21 performance on me considering my boys massively underachieved on the team.

Second, I'm about to start a pure SF training regimen, hopefully with an American (though looking at the TL, it seems unlikely), but about what baseline ratings would you consider SF worthy as well as being U21 worthy? And in which ways would this be a better option than playing a SG at SF for outside offenses or C at SF for inside offenses?

Hope this is the place to ask questions, I forget.

I have a feeling that community involvement will spike up this season for two simple reasons that are uncontrollable.

Game time will be at 6 PM Eastern time instead of 10:30 AM. This is huge. More people can watch the game and tactics can be altered during the day. Last season, all tactics were set the night before.

This team is more exciting and versatile. There has been a Trickle vs. Rainey thread for awhile and a couple other players are interesting (Weeks and Meeks). We have the personnel to go both inside and outside.

It's hard to see our community evolve without more commitment from it. I'd love to see all the serious candidates pledge their time, win or lose, to helping the team.

One more thing, regarding Small Forwards (one of the speeches mentioned this as a lack. EDIT: it was actually clubber_lang's pot above).

Having a SF for the U21 is nearly impossible, and widely acknowledged to be so (it is false that managers are not encouraged to do this).

I just want to chime in on this as well, but first on the comments above that SF's are "undervalued" and "not encouraged". This is kind of crazy--for anyone that follows the TL at all, it's obvious that good SFs are the most overvalued asset in the game. This is true of the NT and u21 teams as well... we almost always encourage people to take well rounded training routes to increase the likelihood a player is able to be used at SF in some capacity down the road. For the NT, training a guard to get on the team at this point is frankly very difficult (with guys like Bronson and Madrid around), so making a SF is much more practical, since there are more types of players that might be appealing. In fact, we have a whole section of the offsite devoted to team training logs, and just about everyone that posts there is working on SFs.

As to the difficultly, I think it helps to put some numbers on the issue. By the start of the age 21 season, a really well trained player is likely to have gotten 30-35 pops. A well rounded SF needs at a minimum, JS, OD, IS, ID, Rb, and ideally Dr, Hnd, Pa. Even if you had an amazing 18yo prospect, with 7's in all skills, and absolutely perfect training (and perfect luck, no injuries, etc), your player is going to end up deficient (meaning a skill <13, and even 13-14 can be a liability at times) somewhere. So the question is, do you want a guy with only 11-12 in JS (which eliminates outside offenses), OD (which eliminates the 3-2 and leaves you vulnerable to outside attacks), ID/Rb (which leaves you vulnerable to those teams that still use 3 bigs), or horrific peripherals (likely meaning lots of turnovers and poor passing)? Or is it better to get a couple specialized guys (say, guards with slightly better than usual rebounding, or bigs with decent jumpers and OD) and just pick whoever fits your game plan best on a week to week basis?

I think your biggest flaw this season was that you seemed disinterested. I think you are well-qualified to run a team from an articulate and tactics stand point. However the U21 manager must also be integrated in the social aspect of the game and I don't think you were. Most of your off-site post on the forums were posted and no interaction with the community existed

I just wanted to clarify on this point. I speak to Jelme on a daily basis and at no point did I see his interest wane. I think more so it was the interest of the community and the boards. Jelme did post on the boards but only got 1-2 responses a day. I as well as others who has his AIM and MSN contacts would get multiple messages debating changes and switches right up until game time. I would not judge his drive by his posts on the offsite, he has done an amazing job so far for this program, and if we were going to impeach someone for seeming slapass on the offsite forum wouldn't it be Wozzvt?

@jfriske from Speeches thread
Training for winning at the U21 level does not inhibit the development of players for the NT. Our most effective guards were guys like Ritter, Ugona, Dennison and Bobby Joe Jeffrey. In terms of primaries, Anglin and Waller were superior to these guys. The season 12 guards had better handling, driving, and passing and were on par in terms of OD. This made them more versatile and the team more effective. Not to mention cost effective.

Giving a player big man two seasons of guard training to start his career is a smart idea if you want to make a NT PF. You shouldn't expect him to make the U21 team though. Very similar to your fictional draftee, I have a 6'9 MVP guy I bought last season, and he is receiving 2 seasons of guard training. I know he won't be on an U21 team, but he may end up being an asset for the NT.What benefit for me, my player, and the community would there be if my player was on the team? A bit of merch for me, maybe a pop in experience for my player, and zip for the community. The other major drawback is the type of player that can be made into a well rounded player like this are few and far between. You need at least MVP potential and they need decent starting skills. I doubt there are 10 players like this a season.

Although I still think the NT could benefit from guards receiving some early focused inside skill training, I agree that U21 guards make a smoother transition to dream NT guards (a great example being Bronson). But for 3/5's of the NT roster, if you're developing a well rounded player it's pretty much a given he won't make the team if the U21's focus is on winning games.

I guess I just don't see it as 'sacrificing the U21 team', I view it more that the main purpose of U21 should be cultivating the NT talent of tomorrow. I'm not against winning games, I just don't think it should be the 1st priority. Training to win U21 might not inhibit NT development (I personally think it does, for bigs) but does it enhance NT development? As far as the pro's and cons, I really do think there's more overall benefit for all parties if we switch the focus to player development, particularly for bigs/SF's:

-the benefit to the manager is that he gets a more salary efficient player. A 50k center with 12/12/12 inside and 8's everywhere else is probably a more effective club player than a 150-200k center with 16/16/16 and 4's everywhere else, especially when you consider the economic impact for D.III and lower teams who can't afford the massive salaries, and who don't actually need it to compete in their division anyway. And as training continues and that player rises to 200k, isn't the manager still getting more bang for his buck for this player, compared to the monoskilled 200k'er?

-the benefit to the community is more players with great secondaries who can provide something unique on the NT level. Training primaries for 5 seasons (20-24) for big men should still get primary skills high enough to compete at that level. Doesn't a player who ends up being an asset to the NT benefit the community more than a player who plays one season at U21 and then is never heard from, because he became too expensive to train? A NT player can help his country for 5-10 seasons vs. just one. And if our NT players are balanced salary efficient 200k+ players who are very effective at the club level, doesn't that help get them in stable club situations where GS might be better managed?

I mean, don't you think your PF trainee plan is ultimately going to contribute more to both your own team, and the US community? He's going to give the US a special NT player eventually, he's going to let your team grow into his salary more comfortably, and he's going to provide 5-10 seasons of NT merchandise revenue someday, all while probably being a more effective club player.

I guess my point is that ultimately, I think it's better for both the managers and the US community to train players the way you are currently training your own player, and so the U21 team should be focused on encouraging that.

And additionally, I think it's possible that a U21 team with guards mostly similar to what we usually produce now and big men with only 12's inside but 8-10's secondaries could provide enough match-up problems to at least compete in U21 games. At the very least it's never really been tried.